A mother on the run

[milliec]

Message withdrawn

sorry hectic mum - the details were released prior to trial, not after.

And criminal cases are bound by sub-judicy(sp), though I don't know how tight that is in effect.

The way the Mail treats stories is a whole ethical issue in itself. One of the latest Private Eye's cleverly points out four stories it ran (in fairly quick succession) about the 'dangers' of energy-saving lightbulbs, then not long after it offered readers two of them free . The Mail is by no means an innocent campaigner for justice but it can sometimes print something worth thinking about - whether that's by mistake or not I don't know .

Yep, the major problem I see with family courts is the secrecy that remains after, not just before - that's a huge problem.

Oh Pan

I can truly say that the Daily Mail makes me want to vomit ...

that's just inexcusable

hecticmum-the criminal courts also place press restrictions on what can and cannot be reported. Even after a trial-some press restrictions may remain in order to protect the rights of an individual.

The idea behind a ban on press coverage of family cases is to protect the children concerned.

The argument about whether that is justifiable or not has been done to death on this thread and others.

Yes, some cases of DV end with the perpetrator being fined and having to undergo a DV anger management course. It is very often what the victim wants. They don't want their relationship to end, just the violence. If the sentence imposed by the court can facilitate that, how is that not helpful?

Many other cases, however, do result in the defendant receiving a custodial sentence. And many victims will still take him (it is usually a him) back when he comes out. That cannot be placed at the door of the court.

I should probably stay away from threads like this but...I don't think Chipkid is "on the side of social workers". It is fair to say that people who can't see problems with how things have been before are unlikely to recognise a need to change - and social services do have some cases where people do need to change. Chipkid will tell me if I'm wrong, but I think in the family courts there aren't "supposed" to be sides - everyone is supposed to do what's best for the child.

A lot of the problem, IME, is that it's all too easy to progress very quickly up the scale to removing children, rather than spending more time/resource trying to keep families together.

I passionately believe, and have experienced, the need for urgent and rather radical change to the system but it will only happen if we accept the whole picture and all it's shades of grey.

freckle, Cod is a magistrate who recently went on a training course. Apparently they were told not to ask 'why doesn't she leave' but 'why doesn't he stop'. Good point, I thought.

Exactly SSM -no clear cut answers.

I still believe the whole profession of Social Services needs a shake up, & open review. As I'm forever saying (forgive the cracked record speech!) we need to be sure that the service the public are being given is the best there can be and this means for the sake of WHOLE FAMILIES not just the child.

If SS are so sure they are whiter than white and are doing the job to the best of their abilities then why are they (and by they I meant the senior management within the SS not the poor overstretched field workers) not doing their utmost to be accountable? We need to know that good practice is being encouraged and bad practice stamped out, with the occasional bad apple , as you get in any work place, being thrown out.

When did you last hear of a SW being sacked or disciplined?

And of course there are cases where children do need to be protected, no-one is saying every case before the courts involves brilliant parents who are persecuted by SS and lawyers. But there has been a whole series of miscarriages of justice involving the same mistakes and refusal to acknowledge or reflect on poor practice. Naive trust in the authorities is frankly foolish.

I think the trouble is that with all the secrecy no one really kows anything about the process until they are suddently thrust into it. My experience was that it was like being sucked down into a whirlpool, starting so innocently but suddenly getting a lot more serious and it was really hard to see any way out.

The thing is that she will have been given plenty of chances to put things right before they went as far as court. It was stipulated to me that dp must leave the home, because the children made allegations about him. SOme true, some not so. By doing this, there was never a threat that the children would be taken from me.

However, social workers are so overworked (plus mine was useless) that there were a hell of a lot of mistakes made, and a lot of what was said at meetings was incorrect. You simply have to keep records of everythign, and be at the meetings to ensure that whatever goes on file is correct. Then you have to check the files again to check for more errors.

accusations were made against me too, but running away wouldn't have solved anything. At the end of the day, I'm not sure I believe they invent reasons to remove a child. There are so many stages in the process, so many professionals involved alongside the social worker, it would have to be a mass conspiracy!!! The power of social workers is overestimated, when it comes down to decision making, before it even reaches court, they are one small voice in a room of very highly trained professionals.

Pan, what exactly is your beef with John Hemmings? He is fighting for better justice in cases such as Fran Lyons, so of course other similar cases will interest him, and milliec. Don't quite get it.

Thankyou seasidemamma

Dittany-you really have no idea do you. How could I adequately represent anybody if I had no insight into how a case is likely to be perceived by a Judge. How could I possibly advise if I was so blinkered by the view that my client must be right because they say they are. I resent your pesonal comments upon my professional ability-and I think you should think carefully before you debase what is a useful discussion with your frankly ill-thought-out comments.

Are you really so un-informed that you think a barrister is only capable of fighting a parent's corner if they truly believe in their cause. If that were the case-then some parents would have no representation at all-because there are some cases where people do really bad things to their children but fail to see it. And in the Criminal Courts-who would have represented Rosemary West had it been a pre-requisite that the barrister must believe in their innocence. You no doubt would ask "how can you defend somebody you know to be guilty" well dittany somebody has to do it to ensure a fair hearing.

It is part of my job to advance people's cases, however futile, without fear or favour-and that is what I do. Next time think before you post.

thankyou coffeemate-that's a really useful post from the point of view of somebody who has experienced it from the hard end.

I think coffeemate has hit on a very relevant point.

The whole system IS so overworked that basic paperwork errors are made & inaccuricies go unchallenged. (we are dealing with humans gere it's inevitable!)

Unfortunatley often the overworked system then takes these cases as absolute truth -why shouldn't they the SW has done a thorough analysis of the situation one would hope- and so the whole thing rumbles on.

Coffemate you were one of the articulate and pro-active ones good for you-but what about the mothers/partners with special needs, or just plain ignorance of their rights? Easy to see how one would get swept along.

bossybritches Coffeemate's post said something else too which is that people are given lots of opportunities to put things right. The process is a long one as Coffemate says and in the case of domestic violence-there has to be a point at which a parent has to choose between her relationship and her children if there is no acceptance on the part of the violent partner that things must change. You would be amazed at how many parents refuse to end a violent relationship even when their children are in interim care.

Edam, this is part of my point. What is the point of simply sending someone to prison, unless you are going to send them there long enough for them to get on some sort of anger management programme? I do agree that, in some cases, prison is absolutely the answer, but it isn't in all cases.

Why doesn't he stop? Because it is learned behaviour, it is something he has done for a long time? Or is it because he saw his dad doing this to his mum so thinks this is how relationships work? To get him to stop, you have to address his thinking, his attitude towards women, etc. Simply sending someone to prison is unlikely to resolve these issues, whereas imposing a requirement to attend a dv/anger management course might. And if it's what the victim wants - after all he may be the father of her children and she wants them to have a dad around, but only if the violence stops - then using alternative sentences is in everyone's interest.

Oh I do believe it chipkid- I've seen it myself first hand many a time the "oh but I still LOVE him " scenario. They are as much victims though aren't they as the kids, they have real mental health issues some of them as a result of the constant mental abuse as well as physical.

I think DV cases are not the ones at issue here, I'm more concerned with the ones where parents are put under pressure to give up their child without full and frank discussion and independant expert witness reports. I know it's a long and involved process and one not undergone lightly but there are still too many of them.

and the reality is that prison sentences for most DV cases is never long enough to be able ot organise any dv programme. The usual charges are Sec39 Common assault, or Sec 47 Actual bodily harm. The sentence to imprisonment, IME is usually 6months to a year. It takes about 6 weeks to "categorise" a priosner along security lines and ship them out from a local prison.

I am sorry BB but I have never experienced a case where people have been put under pressure to give up their child in the way that you describe-maybe it just doesn't happen in my area.

I have never experienced a parent not having legal representation at an early point either-it is usual for parents to be represented at case conferences for example. Lagal representatives have early access to all reports etc. Parents in care proceedings are entitled to free legal aid-irrespective of their income.

However given Dittany's post-that may not be such a good thing you may think!!!!

How is prison the answer though, really? Prisons isn't so much about rehabilitation as punishment. My dp accepted a caution, for common assault. I really don't think going to prison would have helped.

Social services managed to access classes for him, for parenting skills, and he completed that course before he was allowed to start spending any real length of time at home. There are plenty of anger management courses available outside of prison.

It really comes down to whether or not a man wants to change, and sees the error in his behaviour. In our case, dp was shaken up, and perpared to go to any lengths to ensure that we could continue as a family unit, and he genuinely has changed.

bb, I agree, it is easy for somebody to get swept along, and with the sw responsible for pretty much all the monitoring of the family situation, any inaccuracies on their part can have serious repercussions.

the woman in the daily mail article sounds very articulate - 'Being in hiding is like an intricate game of chess, always a question of staying one move ahead of them'. It sounds that a lot of her problem is that she has been hiding and hoping it will go away. I think also, if she didn't deal with the situation last time, there culd be valid concerns that she may place her child in that situation again.

I've also experienced being in a refuge (fun life, me! ) and the number of woman that either return to a violant man or go on to find another violant man is high and most certainly significant in my opinion when considering risk to her child. I'm not saying the child should be removed, but it is clear why they felt a need to investigate.

Yes but chipkid there are cases where the lawyers have colluded with the social workers -so hardly impartial representation is it?

On another dv note, it's often noted that some women just seem to "choose" violent partners, evidenced by the repeat asaults. I think that's the wrong way round. Some men who like to exercise control over partners are pretty good at discerning which women are more vulnerable than others to "being controlled", and the woman doesn't know this about about them until the intimidation starts.